Angara v. Electoral Commission 9. Dec.
31, 1935: Angara filed a Reply
G.R. No. L-45081
06 Sept. 2018 | Laurel, J. | Grant of power includes incidental power
DOCTRINE: The creation of the Electoral Commission (“to be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
NA”) carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the
time within which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled
rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every
particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other
is also conferred.
FACTS (don’t mind the dates na lang hehe except for Dec. 3 and Dec. 9, very impt):
1. Sept. 17, 1935 Elections: Angara and respondent Ynsua were among the candidates voted
as a member of the National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Tayabas
2. Oct. 7, 1935 Provincial Board of Canvassers Proclamation: Angara proclaimed as
member-elect for having received the most number of votes
3. Nov. 15, 1935 Angara Oath-taking
4. Dec. 3, 1935: National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8 “Resolution confirming the
minutes of those members against whom protest is not filed”
5. Dec. 8, 1935: Ynsua filed an electoral protest against the election of Jose Angara, praying
among others that Ynsua be declared elected member of the National Assembly OR said
position be declared nullified
6. Dec. 9, 1935: EC adopted a resolution saying: “The Commission will not consider
any protest that is not submitted on or before this day”
7. Dec. 20, 1935: Angara filed before the EC a MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROTEST
alleging that:
 Reso No. 8 was adopted in the legit exercise of its constitutional prerogative to
prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its members
should be presented
 Reso No. 8 has for its object, and is the accepted formula for, the limitation of said
period
 Ynsua’s protest was filed out of the prescribed period
8. Dec. 27, 1935: Ynsua filed an Answer to Angara’s motion to dismiss. His argument: No
legal or constitutional provision barring the presentation of a protest against the election of
a member of the National Assembly, after confirmation
10. Jan. 23, 1936: EC denied Angara’s motion to dismiss Ynsua’s protest
PETITIONER ANGARA’S ARGUMENTS IN PRESENT PETITION
 Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the EC solely as regards the merits
of contested elections to the National Assembly
 Consti excludes the power to regulate the proceedings of said election contests,
which power has been reserved to the legislature or the National Assembly
 EC can regulate its proceedings only if the National Assembly has not availed of its
primary power to regulate such proceedings
 Reso No. 8 of the National Assembly is VALID and SHOULD BE RESPECTED
AND OBEYED
 Para. 13, Sec. 1 of Ordinance Appended to 1935 Consti; Art. 7, Tydings-McDuffie
Law; Art. 8, Sec. 1 & 3, 1935 Consti: SC has no jurisdiction to pass upon
fundamental question herein raised because it involves an interpretation of the PH
Consti
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN DEFENSE OF THE
ELECTORAL COMMISSION
 EC has been created by the Consti as a tool of the legislature invested with the
jurisdiction to decide all election-related contests (elections, returns, qualifications
of National Assembly members)
 In adopting Reso of Dec. 9, 1935 fixing the date as the last day for the
presentation of protests against the election of any member of the National
Assembly, EC acted within its jurisdiction and in the legitimate exercise
of the implied powers granted by the Consti (to adopt the rules and
regulations essential to carry our the powers and functions conferred upon
EC by the Consti)
 In adopting the Reso of Jan. 23, 1936 dismissing Angara’s motion to
dismiss, EC acted in the legitimate exercise of its quasi-judicial functions
as an instrumentality of the legislative department of the Commonwealth
Gov’t; hence, said act is beyond the judicial control of the SC
 National Assembly Reso No. 8 confirming the elex of Nat’l Assembly members
against whom no protest had thus far been filed, could not and did not deprive the
EC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of elex protests filed withint the time that
might be set by its own rules
 EC Is a body invested with quasi-judicial functions created by the Consti as an
instrumentality of the legislative department
 EC not inferior tribunal per Secs. 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against which prohibition should lie
YNSUA’S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS (MARCH 2, 1936)
  At the time of the approval of EC rules on Dec. 9, 1935, there was no existing law
fixing the period within w/c protests vs elex of members of the National Assembly
should be filed
 In fixing Dec. 9, 1935 as last day of filing of protests, EC was acting on
its power impliedly conferred by the Constitution, quasi-judicial attributes
 Ynsua presented his protest before the EC on Dec. 9, 1935, the last day fixed by EC
 EC acquired jurisdiction over Ynsua’s protest and over the parties
 EC Reso on Jan. 23, 1936 denying Angara’s motion to dimiss was
WITHIN EC’s jurisdiction, NOT REVIEWABLE by means of a writ of
prohibition
 Neither law nor Consti requires confirmation by the National Assembly of the elex
of its members
 Such confirmation DOES NOT OPERATE TO LIMIT PERIOD w/in such
protests should be filed as to deprive EC of jurisdiction over election
protests
 EC is an INDEPENDENT ENTITY created by the Consti, with quasi-judicial
functions, whose decisions are final and unappealable
 EC, as a Consti creation, NOT AN INFERIOR TRIBUNAL within the terms of
Secs. 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure against which prohibition should
lie
 Neither under provisions of the Consti (Secs. 1&2, Art. 8) nor para. 13,
Sec. 1, of the Ordinance appended could it be subject in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions to a writ of prohibition from the SC
 Para.6, Art.7, Tydings-McDuffie Law not applicable to present case
ISSUES w/ HOLDING:
1. WON SC has jurisdiction over the EC and subject matter of
controversy w/ regard to determining the character, scope and extent
of the Constitutional grant to EC mission as sole judge of all electoral
protests re members of the NA – YES.
 Separation of powers, fundamental principle of gov’t though NOT EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED in the Sec. 2, Art. 8, 1935 Consti
 Consti provides for an elaborate system of check-and-balances to secure
COORDINATION in the workings of the various gov’t departments:
 Chief Exec (President) – tasked in approval of laws; subject to further
check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding refusal of the Pres, by
a vote of 2/3 or ¾, as the case maybe, of the NA; has also the right to
convene NA in special session whenever he chooses
 Commission on Appointments – confirmation of appointees
 Assembly – impeachment trial; concurrence essential to conclusion of
treaties
 Supreme Court – final arbiter; checks other departments - declaration of
whether executive or legislative acts violate the Constitution
 Constitution provides a definition of the powers of the government
 Judiciary: Instrumentality to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers
 When it allocates Consti boundaries, it only asserts its solemn and sacred
DUTY to the Consti to determine CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF
AUTHORITY
 “JUDICIAL SUPREMACY”: Power of judicial review under the
Constitution – LIMITED to actual cases and controversies to be exercised
after full opportunity of argument by the parties; if LIS MOTA presented
 In any attempt to inquire upon the justiciability, the court always exercises
its power with the presumption of CONSTITUTIONALITY of legislative
enactments
 Why? Because SC must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as
expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative
branches
 PRESENT PETITION:
 Actual controversy present: conflict of grave consti nature b/w NA
and EC
 EC is a constitutional organ
 Though EC MAY NOT BE INTERFERED WITH, IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW that it is beyond the reach of the
Consti mechanism adopted by the people and that it is not
subject to Consti restraints
 Our Consti framers adopted American type of Consti gov’t: Written
Consti interpreted and given effect by the judicial dep’t
 In countries whose constitutions are silent (sobrang dami – Poland,
Austrian, etc.) with regard to the power of the courts to examine
validity of statutes, COURTS HAVE ASSUMED THE POWER
 The nature of the present controversy shows the necessity
of a final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of
authority between two agencies created by the Constitution
 If SC will not address the issue, who will determine the
conflict?
 If conflict left undecided and undetermined, a VOID will
be created in the Consti system w/c may prove destructive
of the entire framework in the long-run
 “we must avoid exhaustion in our Consti system” – natura
vacuum abhorret
 THUS COURT HELD: SC HAS JURISDICTION
OVER EC AND SUBJECT MATTER OF
CONTROVERSY for the purpose of determining the
 character, scope and extent of the EC as “the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the NA”
2. WON the EC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming
to take cognizance of the protest filed against Angara’s election
notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election by
resolution of the National Assembly – NO.
 Sec. 4, Art. 6 of the 1935 Constitution
 Defined Composition of EC; Set EC as sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members
of the NA
 History/Background re Intent of its framers and the people
who adopted it (brace yourself for a long discussion, just
remember the impt parts haha pili ka na lang jk):
 Act of Congress of 1902: “assembly shall be the judge
of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its
members” was taken from Clause 1 of Sec. 5, Art. 1, US
Consti
 Act of Congress of 1916 modified Act of 1902: insertion
of the word “SOLE”
 To emphasize the exclusive character of the
jurisdiction conferred upon each House of the
Legislature over particular cases
 SC had occasion to characterize this grant of
power to the PH Senate and HoR, respectively,
as “full, clear and complete”
 Sub-committee of the Committee on Constitutional
Guarantees of the Constitutional Convention
 Recommended the creation of a Tribunal fo
Consti Security empowered to hear protests not
only against elex of members of the legislature
but also against the elex of exec officers whose
elex the vote of the whole nation is required, as
well as to initiate impeachment proceedings
against national executive and judicial officers
 For legis protests: tribunal of 3 SC justices + 6
of Legis (3 minority, 3 majority) to be presided
by the Senior Justice unless the CJ is also a
member
 Proposal submitted by the Committee to the
CC on Sept. 15, 1934 with slight revisions
reducing the legis reps to 4 members
 Committee on Legislative Power
 Sept. 24, 1934 Report (p. 163 in SCRA):
“..shall be judged by an EC, constituted, as to
each House..”
 Proposal of Committee on Constitutinal Guarantees
abandoned in favor of the proposal of the Committee on
Legislative Power to create a similar body with reduced
powers and with specific and limited jurisdiction, to be
designated as EC
 Sponsorship Committee modified the proposal with
regard to the composition of EC and made further
changes in the wording to suit the project of adopting a
unicameral instead of a bicameral legislature
 Final draft submitted to CC on Oct. 26, 1934
(p. 164 in SCRA)
 Discussion of the Amendment to strike out whole
subsection of the draft and inserting the following:
 “NA shall be the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
JUDGE of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of the Members”
 Remarks, Dec. 4, 1934:
 If there is no question/contest about
the election of the members, there is
nothing to be judged
 “judge” = controversy
 If no question regarding the election
of a member, nothing to be submitted
to the EC, nothing to be determined
(p. 165)
 Is there a need for the EC to confirm
election of those whose election is not
contested?
 Roxas: No Need. HoR
confirming election of its
members is just a matter of
the rules of the assembly;
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
 No need on the part of the
EC unless there is a contest
 Purpose is to give the EC
all the powers exercised by
 the assembly referring to  ConCon members intended EC to remedy certain evils
the elections, returns, and of which the framers of our Consti were cognizant
qualifications of the  Creation of EC an expression of the wisdom
members and ultimate justice of the people
 EC shall decide whether  Most discernible intent was to TRANSFER in
the election is contested or its totality all the powers previously exercised
not contested by the legislature in matters pertaining to
 Amendment introduced by Labrador contested elections of its members to an
et al seeking to restore the power to INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL
decide contests relating to the TRIBUNAL
election, returns and qualification of  Thus, the purpose was to transfer in its
NA members to the NA itself was totality all the powers previously exercised
DEFEATED by a vote of 98-56 by the legislature in matters pertaining to
 Committee rejected proposal to contested elections of its members, to an
reduce SC representatives and independent and impartial tribunal. It was
minority in the EC not so much the knowledge and appreciation
 Jan. 31, 1935, draft as approved: of contemporary constitutional precedents,
 “All cases contesting the elections, however, as the long-felt need of
returns and qualifications of the determining legislative contests devoid of
Members of the NA shall be judged partisan considerations which prompted the
by an EC….” people, acting through their delegates to the
 Revision by Style Committee: Convention, to provide for this body known
 “Sec. 4. There shall be an EC as the Electoral Commission.
composed of…. The EC shall be the  EC creation under Art. 6 titled Legislative
SOLE JUDGE of the election, Department very indicative
returns, and qualifications of the  Still, it is a body separate from and
members of the NA” independent of legislature
 Further revision: “judge of ALL CONTESTS  EC not yet organized when NA’s Reso No. 8 was issued
RELATING TO election..”  National Assembly as a coordinate department of the
 Transfer of power determining the elections, returns, government and of according validity to its acts, to
and qualifications from legislature to an independent avoid what he characterized would be practically an
body is BY NO MEANS mere experiment in the science unlimited power of the commission in the admission
of gov’t of protests against members of the National
 solved the problem of insuring the non-partisan Assembly. But as we have pointed hereinabove, the
settlement of the controverted elections of its creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it
members by abdicating its prerogative to two judges ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to
of the King's Bench of the High Court of Justice limit the time within which protests intrusted to its
selected from a rota in accordance with rules of court cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of
made for the purpose. construction that where a general power is conferred
 Having proved successful in House of or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary
Commons of England, the practice has become for the exercise of the one or the performance of the
embedded in English jurisprudence other is also conferred
 Practice has also been adopted in the US
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: Petition of writ of prohibition filed by Angara against the
Electoral Commission is hereby denied, with costs against him. So ordered.